THE CONFLAGRATION IS SPREADING

The expansion of the Islamic State [IS] which has seized considerable territories in Iraq and Syria is continuing in the Middle East. Over the last few days, the terrorists with whom the international coalition headed by the USA is still unable to cope, have captured the two strategic cities of Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria.

The capture of Ramadi (a city in Iraq's central Al-Anbar province) by the fighters of "Islamic State" was carried out in their signature manner. They not only dealt cruelly with the Iraq military who were defending the city, but also with 503 civilians, half of them women and children.

Ramadi is located less than 130 km from Bagdad. Thus, in capturing that city, IS has come right up to Baghdad. This incident is the second landmark success by the terrorists after the seizure of Mosul (declared the IS centre) last year. Quite recently it seemed as if the IS invasion had come to a standstill, the Iraqi government troops and the pro-American coalition supporting them had gradually seized the initiative. Just a month ago, the strategically important city of Tikrit was liberated from IS fighters and plans were being drawn up to rapidly liberate Mosul. But the capture of the provincial capital Ramadi, whose population is double that of Tikrit, revealed the uselessness of such proposals. With its retaliatory strike IS deprived the Iraqi coalition campaign of any chances at all of achieving a rapid, victorious conclusion.

True, US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed the conviction that the Iraqi authorities would soon regain control of Ramadi. And in actual fact the international coalition forces did carry out air strikes on the terrorists' positions in Ramadi. But does this mean that an end will be put to IS sway in Iraq in the foreseeable future? It looks as it even Western centres cannot forecast this precisely. They are increasingly often linking calculations relating to the success of the anti-IS campaign with Iran's military activity in the region. Iran is a state that was counted among the definite enemies of the "free world" in the not-so-distant past.

But it is precisely Iran's actual possibilities in the anti-terrorist struggle in the Middle East, just like the thawing of the situation surrounding Tehran's nuclear programme that are opening up the path for the direct involvement of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the fight with the monster called IS. The Iranians themselves are extremely concerned about the IS fighters latest successes, which do in actual fact testify to the bankrupt nature of the Iraqi army which was cobbled together over the decade of American occupation. Iranian Defence Minister Hossein Dehghan has flown to Baghdad to "hold urgent consultations" with his Iraqi counterpart, Khaled al-Obeidi. Moreover, the politicians in Tehran are letting it be understood that it is precisely the actions of the Americans that have led to the current tragic circumstances in Iraq.

 The head of the Iraqi parliamentary defence and security committee, Hakim al-Zamili, believes that the USA is deliberately dragging out the war against the terrorists and that the international coalition it heads is not being sufficiently accurate in targeting "Islamic State" grouping positions in its bombardments. The Iranians also number among the USA's transgressions the fact that the American Air Force is airlifting military aid to the IS detachments instead of the Iraqi military, allegedly by mistake.

Naturally, there is insufficient evidence to assert that the USA is not interested in an IS defeat (even if we take into consideration that they do not wish to see Iraq a strong state). But the fact is that IS, which came into being, Heaven knows how, precisely during the period of American occupation, has become a force that even the aerial armadas of the mighty Western armies are not yet in a condition to cope with. And, if it were not for the assistance from Iran, then Baghdad would have been captured by the IS fighters long ago.

Therefore, now when a realistic prospect of the fall of the Iraqi capital is looming, the eyes of the "free world" are riveted on the Shiite militia supported by Iran. Just as  the chance of halting the IS offensive on the territory of Syria is being tied up with the government forces' resistance, i.e. the regime of President Bashar al-Assad,  which the West regarded exclusively as a dictator-ruler who had no legal standing,  until quite recently. But the latter is finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the hordes of the international terrorist international, which has torn Syria apart in a free and easy manner against the backdrop of the declaration of the local ruling regime that it does not correspond "to the standards of Western democracy". After many days of fierce fighting, the IS fighters have managed to take the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra under their control, which is one of the treasures of human civilisation. 

Nevertheless, even the Western centres admit that Syria's government troops are one of the forces that can realistically withstand the further advance of the IS fighters. It is not accidental that over the last few months the USA and the European Union have considerably toned down the ratcheting up of anti-Assad rhetoric, acknowledging that the domination of international terrorism on the land of ancient Mesopotamia presents itself as the only alternative to plans for regime change in Syria that they have spent years hatching. 

It is noteworthy that US Special Envoy for Syria Daniel Rubenstein's visit to Moscow a few days ago reveals Washington's concern regarding the strengthening influence of "Islamic State" and the other radical groupings in Syria and the neighbouring countries. The American envoy stressed the pressing need for the extremist groupings to be suppressed as soon as possible, noting both the need for direct military operations as well as for a political settlement that takes into account the lawful demands of the Syrian people. When the meeting between Rubenstein and the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov ended, the US State Department made a statement that the United States is reckoning on a joint effort with Russia and the international community aimed at achieving the stable transitional process in Syria, needed "to overcome the crisis and assist in vanquishing the threat of extremism".

Just as the visit by US Secretary of State John Kerry to Sochi, where he was received by Russian President Vladimir Putin, had loud resonance in political circles, the American special envoy's talks in Moscow confirmed Washington's willingness to work together with Russia in fighting international terrorism, even in spite of the ever deepening contradictions between the two powers in relation to the Ukrainian crisis.

Moreover, the "genie" of terrorism, which has been let out of the bottle, largely as a result of the West's "anti-dictator" military operations, keeps on spreading extensively in the countries of the victorious "Arab revolution". While the international coalition is attempting to combat IS in Iraq and Syria, the adherents of "Islamic State, are strengthening their positions in other countries, in particular 

Libya. The Pentagon has frankly acknowledged that the "fighters of Islamic State" now have an operational presence in Libya and they intend to turn the country into their African centre of operations".

In confirming the tendency revealed by the American Defence Department, the influential American publication "The Wall Street Journal" has emphasized that the strengthening of IS positions  in North Africa has become the first real manifestation of IS's broadening sphere of activity beyond the Middle East.

IS is moreover gaining successes in other directions. A few days ago, a double terrorist act, which killed 10 people, took place in the Afghan city of Jalalabad. For the first time in Afghanistan's most recent history "Islamic State" claimed responsibility for the explosions. In so doing, the grouping which has up until now been active in the countries of the Arab world, has entered the expanses of Central Asia. Information is coming in from Afghanistan and Pakistan that increasing numbers of local radical Islamists, primarily from the "Taliban" movement, are swearing their loyalty to "Islamic State". True, this process is not without its complications, as witnessed by reports of ever more frequent clashes between IS fighters and the Taliban as well. In particular, fighting has been recorded in the districts of Kot and Achin.

A whole series of circumstances are mentioned as reasons for the differences between the Taliban and "Islamic State" that we have learned about. Thus, the "Taliban" leaders are not hiding their dissatisfaction with the fact that "Islamic State", which possesses many more financial opportunities than the "Taliban", are recruiting young Afghans into their ranks, including trained fighters and field commanders.

Drug trafficking is yet another sphere in which there are clashes of interests. The Afghan president's national security adviser, Mohammad Hanif Atmar, recently stated that the "Islamic State" grouping can compete with the Taliban, because it is interested in wresting control over the production of banned crops. Essentially, IS and the Taliban have started to fight over sharing up the Afghan narcotics market, which naturally does not facilitate the development of idyllic relations between the two extremist organisations. 

But the main reason for the turf war between the Taliban and IS fighters is the one fundamental difference in the list of aims being pursued by them. Although both organisations are acting under the banner of Wahhabism, "Islamic State" is setting itself a much broader target, namely that of setting up an Islamic Caliphate under their own aegis, i.e. asserting their power throughout the Muslim East. For the "Taliban" it is sufficient to strengthen their foot-hold on a local level, within the limits of Afghanistan and the Pakistani province of Waziristan, in connection with which they are adherents of Mullah Omar and perceive IS's attempts to muscle in on their "inherited estate" with extraordinary fervour.

Moreover, the ideological and political essence and strategic aspiration of IS and the "Taliban" is largely similar, in connection with which the talk about them allegedly declaring a jihad on one another, which has been extensively whipped up by the Western media, may be considered to be just throw-away  news. All kinds of guesses can be hazarded as to the motives for the latter. But attention can be drawn to the fact that reports on confrontations between the Taliban and IS fighters have been extensively circulated on the eve of the spring offensive "against the foreign occupation" declared by the "Taliban". The occupation itself (like the unstoppable tide of radical religious extremism) is yet another similar link in implementing the "Greater Middle East" geopolitical project by the leading world centres.